If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You will have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Idle Thoughts

Hello all,

I've been trawling through some of my old half-baked concepts and came across one that split and categorized various D&D classes and archetypes. Turns out it's similar to the existing 5e class > subclass method but broader for more simplicity.

Basically there are but three classes (Adept, Expert and Warrior) that determines HP, skills, saves/defenses and equipment proficiencies. From there they branch out starting at level 2 into all the names we're familiar with based on a theme and function to call their own.

I thought it would be a cool discussion to have with what others could come up with and what they thought of it. Would generic options like 'fighter' disappear and be split into a handful of themes? What core identity should remain for each (sub)class? What sort of themes are important? Which ones arent? How would it break down during play? Would it be too much choice? Too little?

Re: Idle Thoughts

The original thought was no, once you pick a 'subclass' thats the one you have for all your levels unless you multiclass into one of the other two. So nothing much more revolutionary than 5e in that regard I suppose. Multiple branches sounds amazing but once you consider the number you'd have to make and then balance I can see why that hasn't been done before. Even singleclassing you'd have like 30 options by level 5.

I think part of the original idea was to make chargen as simple as AD&D or simpler: Stats*, Race, Class, Skills, Spells and RP traits and you're good to go. At level 2 you pick your path or start multiclassing. Level 3 you get a feat, and then the pattern repeats (class feature, subclass feature, feat).

*There were some secondary thoughts about trimming down level 15 total and getting rid of the six classic stats in favor of proficiencty tracks. Not terribly relevant but still, food for discussion.